“Goldman analyst Patrick Archambault also outlined several optimistic scenarios where shares could feasibly trade well above current levels,” Russolillo reports. “‘If Tesla’s auto business were to be truly disruptive (to the whole auto industry, not just luxury vehicles), then there would be considerable upside,’ Mr. Archambault wrote. ‘To measure what is truly transformational, we need [to] draw on the experience of past technologies like the iPhone, the Ford Model-T, and selected consumer durables like refrigerators/laundry appliances/dishwashers. All of these were new technologies that were widely adopted and radically revolutionized consumption patterns.'”

Thank You for supporting MacDailyNews!

47 Comments

I’ve actually been looking into purchasing a model S and in my research of Elon and Tesla, have noticed quite a few similarities between the late Mr. Jobs and Mr. Musk. Elon is a visionary and seems to be “bucking the trend” in the EV market. Might have to add a little Tesla stock to my portfolio…

Seems to me he has already proved himself a visionary with a practical bent. He’s impressive in his own right comparisons or otherwise but he is his own man who will succeed or otherwise in his own right.

This article is predicated on a lie. The electric car is not a new technology. Hell, Tesla isn’t even a different take on new technology. It’s rich backers and branding combined meets irrational exuberance.

The Model S can be seen as an analogue to the iPhone because it is literally one of the first electric cars to show a profit and one that drivers get behind the wheel and actually enjoy driving with the huge amount of torque available to the drive train.

It breaks new ground in that sense and is revolutionising the electric car industry by Tesla making an electric car that is desirable by drivers rather than one which was plodding, like the iPhone broke new ground in the smartphone industry.

So you’re wrong and Logic is right. I’m sorry but there it is. You just lack the necessary vision to see beyond existing horizons. Not your fault, but still shows that you’re a visionless man, a Cook analogue if you like.

How do Loockheed Martin, General Dynamics and Boeing (to a smaller extent) make their profits? Through Defense Dept. spending. Any difference as to the source if it came from the Dept. of the Environment?

There is no iPhone subsidy. The consumer pays for every nickel of the price. It is a disguised time payment plan with some really silly upgrade incentives at the end of the contract, namely you can’t get the principal payments to stop, even after you own the device, so you are foolish not to upgrade. That is changing with T-Mobile and MNVOs starting to offer services for iPhones, but there has never been a subsidy.

When a company produces a product for an agreed-upon price, and that product is purchased, it has earned its profits.

When the government performs social engineering by artificially incentivizing certain products by subsidy, there’s no telling how the product would be received by the market on its own merits, and therefore no comparison.

@Higo and the other staggeringly ignorant people on this forum: It takes less than a minute to learn that Tesla had net income of $46 million in Q4Y14. In fact, cash-flow from operations was $130 million on sales of $761 million. It has cash reserves of $846 million. So, Higo, and the others here who clearly haven’t a clue how Tesla is actually performing, the company is not “very much in the red.” And please quit with the government grant stuff: Tesla very publicly paid off its entire Dept of Energy loan, with interest, last year. Tesla is for real, and Musk is a vital part of the reason.

Another historical reference. Before internal combustion power took over, there were electrically powered London Taxi Cabs introduced in 1897 and operated by the London Electrical Cab Company. They were nicknamed “hummingbirds” because of the sound they made, or were otherwise known as Bersey’s, after the name of the the man who designed them.